Remote music production collaboration

The phrase "remote collaboration" is well known in the business world where employees in remote locations, often different continents, collaborate and communicate using a variety of technologies.

At the very simplest this might mean using a cloud based document service such as Google docs/drive. If you've never used it you should try it. It's free, and the documents you create, such as spreadsheets can be downloaded for safe archiving and backup. The only downsides are that you can't access and edit documents without an internet connection.

Cloud services are an incredibly useful resource even if you're working alone. We've found it an invaluable tool for project management, lyric writing, and storing information about recording sessions and gear setups. The ability to type into a phone some ideas or lyrics that occur to you whilst on the train, and then have the document update and sync across all your devices ready for when you get back to your studio, or pickup your tablet, is both convenient and empowering.

And then there's music production collaboration. The idea of running recording sessions that involve people in different geographical locations is not new, but as network connection speeds have improved they become increasingly less expensive and more satisfying. Whilst broadcast professional use expensive, old and establishes ISDN protocols, project studio owners can use technologies that exploit cheap and available internet protocols. Recently Avid have integrated music production network collaboration into Pro Tools.

You can choose between several primary working methods for collaboration ..

Offline
A 'master' session is stored in the cloud and various collaborators can edit and contribute to it.

Real-time
This involves running a session in which 2 computers with identical host software (eg DAWs) are synced. Whilst we're used to evaluating broadband service by comparing download speeds, upload speed is equally important for real-time collaboration, and 10Mbps is recommended. Also, wired ethernet connections form DAW computer to router are recommended. Avoid wi-fi.

File-sharing
Send a backing track or session to a collaborator who adds their contribution and sends it back. It is not always necessary to sync two systems. Many of us work alone on projects but need the contributions of others, a soloist perhaps, or a singer. Providing your contributor has a decent mic and A to D convertor, and some basic sound recording ability, it's easy to send them a backing track and have them record the part you need.

Remote producing
But what about actually producing their performance live? In this case, all you really need is a Skye or FaceTime connection. You can give them real-time feedback, guidance and encouragement.

So perhaps now is the time to think about trying remote collaboration. Contact old musician friends or make new ones. Who knows what new musical avenues may open for you.

Thanks for reading
FairFax

Equipment love

During the course of writing these blog posts over the last year or so, we have said many times that choice of equipment is less important than the creative decisions you make when writing, arranging and recording your music.

Great recordings sound good because of the creative decisions talented producers and engineers made, the choice of gear is less important. talent will always get something special out of "lesser" gear, but the talentless will struggle to make a good recording in even the best equipped studios.

It's also important to recognise when we have developed a creative and emotional relationship with a piece of equipment, and not exchange or upgrade it when a technically superior model is released.

We made this mistake when we sold our Akai S1000 samplers and started using technically superior and more powerful software samplers. Software samplers are fine for sample replay, but for recording sound and getting creative something is missing. Even seeing a picture of an S1000 makes us smile. They revolutionised our music making and the tactile control interface and software environment was brilliant once you'd mastered it. An experienced S1000 programmer was like a virtuoso musician. MPC owners know all about these emotions.

We feel exactly the same about some old digital effects processors we own. Here's some gear we love ..

Yamaha REV500 reverb
Roland SH101
Korg Wavestation
Drawmer DS201 gate
Lexicon PCM60 reverb

All these devices have been superseded by superior software plug-ins, but we don't get the same buzz from plug-ins.

What we're saying is that sometimes the way you feel about a piece of gear enables you to create your best work. To make great music it's not necessary to be constantly upgrading gear and learning the latest techniques. So save some cash, dust off that beloved neglected device at the bottom of the cupboard, and feel the love!

Thanks for reading
FairFax

Will old school sound recording terminology ever die?

Some sound recording terminology is so entrenched it's doubtful it's will ever be replaced, even though in-the-box digital technologies and algorithms do things in a totally different way to analogue hardware.

Take subtractive analogue synthesis. We all know why it's essential to learn the terminology. It's not just because subtractive synthesis is popular and enduring, but also because most digital synthesis methodologies have adopted the same terminology for their GUIs.

At the birth of digital synthesis in the early 1908s manufacturers expected us to familiarise ourselves with new terminology such as algorithms and operators, but that didn't last long (we couldn't handle it!) and now all the major software synth interfaces present us with subtractive type controls even though what's going on under the hood is often utterly different.

It's not just synthesis. How many DAW users have ever operated a multi-track tape recorder and yet there's the transport bar, reminding us that we missed all the fun!

Apple's Logic ProX transport bar

And will we ever see the end of the analogue mixer metaphor with it's faders, auxiliary sends and buses?

The truth is, all these representations work pretty well, and until someone comes up with an alternative that is both genuinely innovative and immediately obvious and easy to operate, perhaps we don't have much to complain about.

Some of us remember being amazed by Steinberg Pro 24 (it was the first GUI emulation of a multi-track tape recorder, albeit MIDI only) back in the mid 1980s. How many of us could have foreseen that the transport bar would still be around in 2015!

Steinberg Pro 24 which ran on the Atari ST

Thanks for reading and watching.
FairFax

Do we need technology outside-the-box?

We have recently been contributing to the development of a new Music Technology (MT) qualification targeted at 6th form (17-18 year olds). The qualification is currently out for review, which means industry and teachers have an opportunity to comment on what we've written.

Whilst writing the units we were surprised at how many technologies, that we thought were central, were now considered obsolete by the other developers.

Take MIDI. It was decided that there was little need to teach MIDI interconnection because few had MIDI interfaces. A USB controller was thought to be the norm and no one was using hardware sound modules.

Remember these?

Digital synchronisation and interconnection was determined to be a niche subject because most analogue to digital convertors were built into "sound-cards" that connected vis USB or FireWire. Also the term "stand alone A to D convertor" was removed because it was thought few would know what they were.

Now, call us old fashioned, but this sounds a little like the tail wagging the dog. Over the last 5 years, few colleges and schools have invested in hardware systems to teach music technology. Yes they may have some mics, a live room and some cheap mic-pres, but most everything else is in-the-box (ITB). Institutions invest in (usually) Cubase, Logic or Live, fill a room with computers, cheap controller keyboards and headphones and teach with that. After all, it's cost effective and space saving.

But we see professionals using larger integrated hardware and software systems all the time including; RME, Apogee and Avid stand alone A to D convertors, MIDI synths such as Dave Smiths Prophet range, stand alone channel strips with built in A to D that need synchronising to a DAW and sampling drum machine workstations synced to a DAW via MTC.

We're not arguing that most industry practice uses DAWs, but what professional industry jobs are there for young people who have studied MT but who would be unable to interconnect and operate an integrated network of analogue, digital and controller signal devices? Would you employ someone who could only use Cubase?

Look, you can touch it!

The problem is that whilst thousands want to study MT, there are few employment opportunities for those without a broader range of skills. Yes there will be some who are talented or lucky enough to have success with music and sound created ITB, but most will find themselves unemployable. The best MT jobs, such as foley, film soundtrack and games design music and sound, require a facility with a wide range of devices, standards and work practices.

However, despite what our governments want, not everyone wants to gain skills purely for employment. Sometimes the joy of learning is enough. But if that is the case why not learn online with free sites like ours? And you can spend the money you save on college fees buying some great old gear on eBay!

Thanks for reading
FairFax